Hi, we have known of our son's nut and peanut allergies for almost 2 years now. I am always wondering and being asked how did he come to have these allergies. I know that is a question on the minds of many and that there is no answer. I read many things from many sources about possible causes and research going on. I came across something about RhoGam injections while you are pregnant if your blood type is Rh negative and possible anaphylaxis in children later. I am Rh negative and my doctor had me take the RhoGam injection when I was pregnant even though it was totally unecessary as my son turned out to be Rh negative and he is our only child. Just wondering if anyone else has heard anything about this possible connection being linked to the rise in anaphylactic allergies to egg, nuts, peanuts (RhoGam was first introduced in the late 1960's)? Of course I blame his allergies on everything I can think of and this is probably part of some socialization into the whole hidden disability aspect of living with a life threatening condition. Thanks everyone for being there!.

I too always get asked "why"? Five years ago, while pregnant with my daughter I looked for medical advise to try to prevent allergies since my husband has them. I was pretty much given the impression that public health, and the general public had some misconception that allergies were the result of parents introducing foods too soon, and not breastfeeding long enough. Basically, I felt that I was told breastfeed, delay the introduction of foods and you won't get them. WRONG!!! So this misconception makes me wonder if sometimes when people are rude or unwilling to accomidate us in any way, if they are acting on the misconception that "She screwed up, now she has to live with the consequences."

I've read a lot of information, and I really support the theory that these children, most with extremely healthy immune systems are overreacting because of genetic modification. Cows are injected with hormones, steroids, and vaccines in order to keep them healthy, and keep them yielding high milk production. Peanuts and other nuts are modified to resist pests, and grow strong in less than perfect growing conditions. They ae sprayed with pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers. They are not in the form mother nature intended.

These allergies are not as common in developing countries where they do not have the technology or the means to alter their foods. They are somewhat forced into organic growing of their food supply, free of the "technologies" we are so fortunate to have. Aren't we so fortunate to live in technologically superior society.

So, when people ask me "Why?", I usually say that while no one really knows for sure, that some people feel that it is usually the small children who are the first to suffer from a society of genetic modification and chemicals. That usually takes the blame off of me. I do not deserve blame. I did nothing wrong. I know that it is there in their minds, that they think that it is my fault. I try to open their minds a little to the likelihood that there is something or someone to blame other than their mother.

activemom, I've never heard of those shots being considered a cause of allergies.

I agree that the gm foods is part of the cause. I also think (and this is just my own opinion) that being vaccinated against everything is related as well. Our immune systems don't have as much to do as they once did - so they are attacking something as innocent as peanut protein. This also explains why allergies are not as common in developing countries.

I have another theory which is just me, and there is absolutely no evidence to support this. This is my thought, and not anyone elses that I have ever heard of.

For millions of years, people ate foods which were a part of their immediate surroundings. They ate the fruit and nuts of plants which they were in contact with. they breathed in the pollens, as farmers they handled the seeds and tended the crops. With their animals, they were in contact with them as they hunted and raised them. There food was a part of their immediate environment. (This is still true of developing countries).

Today, our food is grown globally. We do not come into contact with the plants and animals we eat while they are alive and growing. We only contact them when we eat them. They are a truely foriegn substance, thus an invader which the immune system attacks.

I would be curious to know if wheat allergy is less common in areas of north america where wheat is grown, and if soy allergy is less common in areas where soy is grown, and the locals breath in the pollens.

I heard that owning a cat may prevent cat allergies. I figured that my theory of those who are in contact with the foods of their diet while alive and growing as a plant or animal was along the same lines.

Awhile ago, I read an article (and posted it somewhere on this site) about how a genetically modified version of a protein was more allergenic than it was when it was in the host plant. It seems that the sugars 'decorating' the protein in the new plant somehow made it more allergenic. So what I take from this is that other things surrounding the protein can affect the allergenicity of that particular protein although the reasons are not well understood.

The dramatic rise in allergies and other autoimmune diseases has been accompanied by major changes in our environment and diet. No one knows exactly what is going on, but I bet it has something to do with one or more of the following:

--pollution, chemicals (they do make environmental allergies worse. also lots of people react to perfumes, etc., which, essentially are petrochemicals)
--hormones in the meat
----phlates (sp?) in plastics which as I understand are endocrine disrupters (haven't really researched this, though)
--genetically engineered foods

I bet that the prevalence of fish and shellfish allergy might have something to do with all the pollutants which are quite concentrated in seafood.

Another thing:
At Allergy Expo, Dr. Judah Denburg mentioned in his plenary talk that the protective role of omega-3 oils is a promising area of research.

Dr. Denburg didn't say this, but I've read that meat from cows that are allowed to graze naturally contain omega-3 oils. The same goes for farm-raised fish. It is only relatively recently that we started eating meat from animals which have been fed garbage.

Allergies have turned me into an environmentalist.....I always considered myself to be an environmentalist in *theory* but now I'm trying to be more of an environmentalist in practise.

I tend to agree with the environmental abnormalities of today's world.

I read somewhere a while ago that peanut allergies are almost non-existent in the southern United States where peanuts are grown. I also read that peanut crops are rotated with cotton crops and cotton crops are very highly pesticided.

I stayed away from peanuts/peanut butter when I was pregnant and when I was nursing and voila, child with a peanut allergy.

That is extremely interesting that peanut allergies are almost non-existant where they are grown. That would be aweful to live where peanuts grow all around you if your child is allergic. Especially in the land of hurricanes and tornados where everything flies through the air occassionally.

I heard that too about the cotton. Since most of it is not to be eaten (other than cottonseed oil ), it can be soaked in chemicals more than "for food" crops. However, in my opinion, food crops have way to may chemicals sprayed on them too.

I always wonder if it has something to do with bottled water or filtered water. You notice how nut/peanut allergies aren't common in third world countries? It obviously has something to do with our lifestyles, and North Americans didn't start drinking bottled or filtered water regularly until after the 80s.

When my oldest daughter was a baby, I was house bound to a feeding schedule, and forced to sit on the couch feeding for what seems like an eternity. The baby did not speak or offer much conversation. During this time, I managed to watch every single episode of Little House On The Prairie. I had not watched it ever, and I loved it. It was on 4 hours a day, and that was 4 different episodes.

Anyways, I always think about how life was for Charles and Caroline. They grew there own food, they raised there own animals. Four and a half years ago, I thought that would have been an aweful way to live. I thought Caroline was "super mom" and now in a lot of ways (other than wolves, fevers and various other tragedies )I believe her day to day life was easier and less stressful than mine. Now, it does not look so bad. No chemicals, no genetic modification, no polution, no potentially life threatening allergies, no husband that is always away with work, no society pushing food at your allergic kids. Its all good! Sure, they got "the fever", but with todays medicines, maybe moving to a small self-sufficient organic farm without the influences of the "junk food obsessed" would not be all that bad.

I didn't know that cotton and peanut crops are rotated. That totally fits with the pesticide/chemical theory.

About the fewer allergies in poorer countries---one of my friends went to medical school and she read of a study done in an area with lots of parasites. No one in the village had allergies--since IgE has two functions 1) to fight parasites 2) to cause allergic reactions that makes sense.

That having been said, my maternal grandmother lived just like they did in Little House on the Prairie days--she grew up on a small family-run farm in a poverty stricken area in the US south. No electricity until she was in her teens (and even then they just had one bare bulb hanging from the ceiling), no running water. They grew cotton to sell and grew everything else for themselves---they even produced their own meat. They did get parasites from time to time and used a few drops of turpentine to get rid of them (they couldn't afford to pay a doctor's fees so they used home remedies). But my grandmother is anaphylactic--to bee stings. She has been since she was a kid, but she didn't know what it was called or what to do about it. (she's fortunate that she is still alive, really.) There are allergies on all sides of the family, but the anaphylaxis comes from that branch of the family. I don't think I've heard of anyone else in my grandmother's generation having food allergies, though--just my grandmother. My one uncle on that side, though, is anaphylactic to nuts--I don't know about pollen allergies, but he has trouble with moulds. My mother has developed a slight nut allergy too and has always had oral allergy syndrome (+ major pollen and environmental allergies). And my aunt is majorly allergic to her dog and is on tons of asthma meds. That leaves one more of my mother's siblings--I'm fairly sure that he has pollen allergies, but I'm not 100% sure. (But it didn't all come from my grandmother's side--my grandfather has never been to an allergist or anything, but I'm pretty sure he has allergic rhinitis.) I'm afraid there are allergies and asthma on my dad's side as well.

Senegal is a major peanut-growing country. I remember when I was in Dakar over 10 years ago, peanuts were everywhere. You would always find a big bowl of unshelled peanuts when you sat at a restaurant table. They were complimentary, along with the baskets of bread. I don't remember hearing of anyone who had a peanut allergy.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum